ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1002|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[求助]885-sec5-21 居然从来没人错么?

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2008-9-27 08:18:00 | 只看该作者

[求助]885-sec5-21 居然从来没人错么?

21.   Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

(A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy

(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food

(C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food

(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior (B)

(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior

请问大家,in attributing的用法有什么问题?D、E很容易被排除,attribute与cause语义重复,那么A和C是怎么排除的?谢谢!

另外,an allergy to some food与some food allergy有问题吗?还是相同的?

非常感谢!

沙发
发表于 2008-9-27 11:38:00 | 只看该作者
in attributing的话,这个部分的逻辑主语就是the perpetrators ,但实际的逻辑主语应该是 Defense attorneys 。不知道这样解释能不能理解。
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2008-9-27 22:06:00 | 只看该作者

讲的很有道理,超级感谢~~~

我先前确实没想到逻辑主语的问题,还在网上狂查是不是in attributing的用法不存在。

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

IESE MBA
近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-6 03:54
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部